preemptive strikes - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

jimk · 08-27-2003, 09:06 AM

as i get older, i'm noticing the natural (albeit annoying) tendency to become more conservative. on a personal level, i can't be as much of a nutjob 'cause i've got kids, wife, mortgage, etc. and on a political level, some of the more liberal economic ideas i had in college really piss me off now, 'cause i've been working my balls off for 15 years & don't want to support everyone who doesn't feel like working.

BUT.....my grudging slide to the right does not take away the fear i have of our country (USA) starting to take out governments/leaders we don't agree with. don't get me wrong - i'd go axe hussein myself - but this shit has GOT to be kept in check, or else we're on our way to becoming an empire that will eventually be overthrown.

here's to hoping the morons driving the bus can learn from history (rome, ussr, uk, etc).

mml · 08-27-2003, 09:28 AM

The "Bush Doctrine" of preemtive strikes is, in a historical sense, a very poor one. If one understands the history of U.S. politics and military proceedures you will see that when our Presidents make great and dramatic changes in our policies these changes become "Doctrines". These doctrines have great long term influence on our nation and in turn the world. They are much like legal precedent in our judicial system. Something that is justifiable in one situation can become justifiable in a similar situation. Ergo, if the U.S. perceives a nation to be a potential threat it has the right to intervene (i.e. attack) and eliminate the threat. This may sound like and intelligent and safety conscience way of dealing with the world.

However, this sets a rather frightening precedent. Let's assume that President Bush has no intention of using this Doctrine of preemption again(while this is laughable, just go with me). How do we determine that future administrations may not use this doctrine to embroil us in actions throughout the world in the name of U.S. National Securtiy. If a nation comes too comfortable with its dominance and the responsibilities that come with it, it is a recipe for distaster.

In addition if, preemptive strikes are legitimate by us, can we fault China for attacking Taiwan, since Taiwan is trying to increase its military capabilities? Can India attack Pakistan or vice versus in the belief that terrorist attacks stem from the other country and that it is known that their enemy had WSDs? Why can't Syria invade Israel? They are certainly a threat to Syria(in Syria's opinion) and are probably the only nation in the Middle East with WMDs.

This is simply a huge can of worms that President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld and Mr. Wolfowitz have opened. Let us hope that we elect a new President who can help to put a lid on this and keep the worms from getting out.

Mojo_PeiPei · 08-27-2003, 09:39 AM

Why is it such a bad idea? Iraq aside.... Lets look at N. Korea, those fuckers are crazy and desperate whose to say they won't use nukes against us, espcially when they get missles that are capable of delivering them? All I'm saying is in an age when a single bomb has the ability to eradicate thousands of lives in a heart beat why should we have to wait to get hit first before acting???

mml · 08-27-2003, 09:48 AM

It is not that we should be afraid to act. Its not that we shouldn't be prepared to act. It is that there are better, more intelligent ways of going about it. Unilateral, preemptive strikes(IMO) actually decrease security by creating an atmosphere of aggression. Yes I believe North Korea is a threat, actually a much greater threat than Iraq was. However, we are currently working with the international community(China, Russia, Japan,S. Korea) in order to deal with this situation rather than stiking. There are numerous reasons for this - primarily the fact that they may indeed have WMDs and do have one of the largest standing armies in the world.

Kennedy once said "We should never negotiate out of fear, but we never should fear to negotiate." I hope the current administration is learning that lesson .

The_Dude · 08-27-2003, 09:58 AM

i would love to see india launch an attack on pakistan (i wouldnt love to see this part) and what gwb does (that is, whether he would support india).

pakistan has publically acknoledged supported militant groups that conduct terrositic acts against indian civilians and the military. (there was a twin car bombing in bombay a couple of days ago and lots of people died).

thankfully, india is not like US or Isreal in that india retaliates for every strike done by the enemy. I dont think US would support india's "war on terror".

Mojo_PeiPei · 08-27-2003, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
i would love to see india launch an attack on pakistan (i wouldnt love to see this part) and what gwb does (that is, whether he would support india).

pakistan has publically acknoledged supported militant groups that conduct terrositic acts against indian civilians and the military. (there was a twin car bombing in bombay a couple of days ago and lots of people died).

thankfully, india is not like US or Isreal in that india retaliates for every strike done by the enemy. I dont think US would support india's "war on terror".

Well obviously Indian's are a bunch of fucking pussies. What are they doing to stop the terrorism? Letting those punk bitch's do that shit and not standing up to them is wrong, they have the duty to protect the people.

The_Dude · 08-27-2003, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Well obviously Indian's are a bunch of fucking pussies. What are they doing to stop the terrorism? Letting those punk bitch's do that shit and not standing up to them is wrong, they have the duty to protect the people.

wait a sec....isnt the US in pakistan? the US military?

isnt the US also giving aid to pakistan? why is US helping to kill indians?

XenuHubbard · 08-27-2003, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Why is it such a bad idea?

Read the posts before yours. They explain why it's a bad idea.

2wolves · 08-27-2003, 10:54 AM

Viceroy Bremmer would be out of a job!

Empire only works for as long as you can expand into resource rich areas. Quite like, in outlook, like Jeffersonian "yoeman farmers" always having additional land to raise cotton & tobacco. Have to move on in a very few years as those crops destroy the soil. Eventually you run out of land, over extend, or just get too fat and lazy. Beware the Visigoths!!!!!

2Wolves

Mojo_PeiPei · 08-27-2003, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
wait a sec....isnt the US in pakistan? the US military?

isnt the US also giving aid to pakistan? why is US helping to kill indians?

1) No the U.S. is not in Pakistan, perhaps diplomats, but the military is definently not there
2) Yes the U.S. is giving aid to the Pakistani's, so your right it probably is getting funneld to terrorists.

Zeld2.0 · 08-27-2003, 12:36 PM

Righhhhttt India is a buncha pussies.

Maybe notice the fact that these two nations are nuclear capable and they have more logic than to start a war for no reason.

nobody wants to rule over a parking lot - its that simple. Unless you are a 100% crazy ass mother fucker you are probably not going to start a nuclear war.

N. Korea is being held differently than Iraq because the U.S. doens't know how it will tackle a nation that is possibly nuclear capable. We pretty much knew Iraq wasn't despite saying they were and it was a much easier can of worms to open.

jimk · 08-27-2003, 12:37 PM

mojo: who was custard? i love his donuts.

Mojo_PeiPei · 08-27-2003, 12:38 PM

OMG! haha the day is mine!

The_Dude · 08-27-2003, 12:41 PM

so, if india invades pakistan, US would tag along and be on the coalition against terror (or evil or whatever bush calls it these days?)

Remember how US called on other countries to help in the iraqi invasion?? would the US be kind enough to send it's soldiers into pakistan?

Mojo_PeiPei · 08-27-2003, 12:45 PM

Obviously not, Pakistan is too valuable (at least logistically speaking) in the war in Afganistan. Hypocrital I tells ya!

archer2371 · 08-27-2003, 12:48 PM

North Korea can definitely be left alone. Sure, they're desperate, but not that desperate (or stupid) to launch an attack on the South. That DMZ is actually there to keep the South invading the North to tell the truth. DPRK won't be launching any nukes because they know if they do, China will drop them faster than you can say "North Korea just did something stupid." If the U.S. starts to go after the DPRK, I will be totally against it, because there is no reason to go over there. I agree, after Iraq is finished and cleaned up, there needs to be less preemptiveness and more diplomatic pressure on those nations that we don't really care for.

The_Dude · 08-27-2003, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Obviously not, Pakistan is too valuable (at least logistically speaking) in the war in Afganistan. Hypocrital I tells ya!

and you're OK with US forces dying? (and they're not dying to protect americans either

)

Mojo_PeiPei · 08-27-2003, 12:56 PM

I don't know if necessarily agree Archer, isn't part of the reason N. Korea is acting crazy is because they are being isolated?

archer2371 · 08-27-2003, 01:06 PM

Nope, I lived there for awhile and anytime I asked one of my dad's military friends, gov't contractor friends, etc. they were all saying the same thing that I am right now. Plus if they do end up doing something stupid, we know where every single missile launch site of theirs is and we can take it out at the drop of a hat. There is no need to be preemptive with N. Korea at this point in time.

Mojo_PeiPei · 08-27-2003, 01:08 PM

Do you think Bush is playing around the preemptiveness on this one and looking to provoke the North? THat makes why more sense. Starve them out and let their resources dwindle forcing them to confrontation.

archer2371 · 08-27-2003, 01:51 PM

I certainly think you can make an argument for that, but I don't think so. I really don't think that the North will react in that way, because I think that they know if they do, some serious reprecussions will occur, not just from America, but from generally every nation in the world. I'm not taking this as a view from America, I'm taking this as a point of view of the DPRK, it would not be beneficial for them to launch nukes, and I think they realize that.

The_Dude · 08-27-2003, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Do you think Bush is playing around the preemptiveness on this one and looking to provoke the North? THat makes why more sense. Starve them out and let their resources dwindle forcing them to confrontation.

bush is too stupid to think of something like that.

GarthInPittsburgh · 08-27-2003, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
bush is too stupid to think of something like that.

Bush is too stupid to think of a lot of stuff... I'm sure a lot of his foreign policy is decided by other people...

omnigod · 08-28-2003, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Bush is too stupid

I bet Bush is smarter than you. Doesnt that make you feel really stupid? If Bush was stupid ,he would not have been elected president.

Sorry, I just get upset when people call others "stupid" and "retarted" without sitting down and speaking with the guy.

Watch My Fellow Americans - the Vice President in the movie makes a good point about this.

The_Dude · 08-28-2003, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by omnigod
I bet Bush is smarter than you. Doesnt that make you feel really stupid? If Bush was stupid ,he would not have been elected president.

Sorry, I just get upset when people call others "stupid" and "retarted" without sitting down and speaking with the guy.

Watch My Fellow Americans - the Vice President in the movie makes a good point about this.

yes, he is smarter than me, but it's not smart enough to be in the office of president.

08-27-2003, 09:06 AM	#1 (permalink)
jimk Addict Location: Chicago	preemptive strikes as i get older, i'm noticing the natural (albeit annoying) tendency to become more conservative. on a personal level, i can't be as much of a nutjob 'cause i've got kids, wife, mortgage, etc. and on a political level, some of the more liberal economic ideas i had in college really piss me off now, 'cause i've been working my balls off for 15 years & don't want to support everyone who doesn't feel like working. BUT.....my grudging slide to the right does not take away the fear i have of our country (USA) starting to take out governments/leaders we don't agree with. don't get me wrong - i'd go axe hussein myself - but this shit has GOT to be kept in check, or else we're on our way to becoming an empire that will eventually be overthrown. here's to hoping the morons driving the bus can learn from history (rome, ussr, uk, etc). __________________ raw power is a guaranteed o.d. raw power is a laughin' at you & me -iggy

08-27-2003, 09:28 AM	#2 (permalink)
mml Adrift Location: Wandering in the Desert of Life	The "Bush Doctrine" of preemtive strikes is, in a historical sense, a very poor one. If one understands the history of U.S. politics and military proceedures you will see that when our Presidents make great and dramatic changes in our policies these changes become "Doctrines". These doctrines have great long term influence on our nation and in turn the world. They are much like legal precedent in our judicial system. Something that is justifiable in one situation can become justifiable in a similar situation. Ergo, if the U.S. perceives a nation to be a potential threat it has the right to intervene (i.e. attack) and eliminate the threat. This may sound like and intelligent and safety conscience way of dealing with the world. However, this sets a rather frightening precedent. Let's assume that President Bush has no intention of using this Doctrine of preemption again(while this is laughable, just go with me). How do we determine that future administrations may not use this doctrine to embroil us in actions throughout the world in the name of U.S. National Securtiy. If a nation comes too comfortable with its dominance and the responsibilities that come with it, it is a recipe for distaster. In addition if, preemptive strikes are legitimate by us, can we fault China for attacking Taiwan, since Taiwan is trying to increase its military capabilities? Can India attack Pakistan or vice versus in the belief that terrorist attacks stem from the other country and that it is known that their enemy had WSDs? Why can't Syria invade Israel? They are certainly a threat to Syria(in Syria's opinion) and are probably the only nation in the Middle East with WMDs. This is simply a huge can of worms that President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld and Mr. Wolfowitz have opened. Let us hope that we elect a new President who can help to put a lid on this and keep the worms from getting out. __________________ Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -Douglas Adams

08-27-2003, 09:39 AM	#3 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Why is it such a bad idea? Iraq aside.... Lets look at N. Korea, those fuckers are crazy and desperate whose to say they won't use nukes against us, espcially when they get missles that are capable of delivering them? All I'm saying is in an age when a single bomb has the ability to eradicate thousands of lives in a heart beat why should we have to wait to get hit first before acting??? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

08-27-2003, 09:48 AM	#4 (permalink)
mml Adrift Location: Wandering in the Desert of Life	It is not that we should be afraid to act. Its not that we shouldn't be prepared to act. It is that there are better, more intelligent ways of going about it. Unilateral, preemptive strikes(IMO) actually decrease security by creating an atmosphere of aggression. Yes I believe North Korea is a threat, actually a much greater threat than Iraq was. However, we are currently working with the international community(China, Russia, Japan,S. Korea) in order to deal with this situation rather than stiking. There are numerous reasons for this - primarily the fact that they may indeed have WMDs and do have one of the largest standing armies in the world. Kennedy once said "We should never negotiate out of fear, but we never should fear to negotiate." I hope the current administration is learning that lesson . __________________ Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -Douglas Adams

08-27-2003, 09:58 AM	#5 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	i would love to see india launch an attack on pakistan (i wouldnt love to see this part) and what gwb does (that is, whether he would support india). pakistan has publically acknoledged supported militant groups that conduct terrositic acts against indian civilians and the military. (there was a twin car bombing in bombay a couple of days ago and lots of people died). thankfully, india is not like US or Isreal in that india retaliates for every strike done by the enemy. I dont think US would support india's "war on terror". __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

08-27-2003, 10:54 AM	#9 (permalink)
2wolves Psycho Location: Just outside the D.C. belt	Viceroy Bremmer would be out of a job! Empire only works for as long as you can expand into resource rich areas. Quite like, in outlook, like Jeffersonian "yoeman farmers" always having additional land to raise cotton & tobacco. Have to move on in a very few years as those crops destroy the soil. Eventually you run out of land, over extend, or just get too fat and lazy. Beware the Visigoths!!!!! 2Wolves

08-27-2003, 12:36 PM	#11 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	Righhhhttt India is a buncha pussies. Maybe notice the fact that these two nations are nuclear capable and they have more logic than to start a war for no reason. nobody wants to rule over a parking lot - its that simple. Unless you are a 100% crazy ass mother fucker you are probably not going to start a nuclear war. N. Korea is being held differently than Iraq because the U.S. doens't know how it will tackle a nation that is possibly nuclear capable. We pretty much knew Iraq wasn't despite saying they were and it was a much easier can of worms to open.

08-27-2003, 12:37 PM	#12 (permalink)
jimk Addict Location: Chicago	mojo: who was custard? i love his donuts. __________________ raw power is a guaranteed o.d. raw power is a laughin' at you & me -iggy

08-27-2003, 12:38 PM	#13 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	OMG! haha the day is mine! __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

08-27-2003, 12:41 PM	#14 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	so, if india invades pakistan, US would tag along and be on the coalition against terror (or evil or whatever bush calls it these days?) Remember how US called on other countries to help in the iraqi invasion?? would the US be kind enough to send it's soldiers into pakistan? __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

08-27-2003, 12:45 PM	#15 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Obviously not, Pakistan is too valuable (at least logistically speaking) in the war in Afganistan. Hypocrital I tells ya! __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

08-27-2003, 12:48 PM	#16 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	North Korea can definitely be left alone. Sure, they're desperate, but not that desperate (or stupid) to launch an attack on the South. That DMZ is actually there to keep the South invading the North to tell the truth. DPRK won't be launching any nukes because they know if they do, China will drop them faster than you can say "North Korea just did something stupid." If the U.S. starts to go after the DPRK, I will be totally against it, because there is no reason to go over there. I agree, after Iraq is finished and cleaned up, there needs to be less preemptiveness and more diplomatic pressure on those nations that we don't really care for. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

08-27-2003, 12:56 PM	#18 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I don't know if necessarily agree Archer, isn't part of the reason N. Korea is acting crazy is because they are being isolated? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 08-27-2003 at 01:02 PM..

08-27-2003, 01:06 PM	#19 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	Nope, I lived there for awhile and anytime I asked one of my dad's military friends, gov't contractor friends, etc. they were all saying the same thing that I am right now. Plus if they do end up doing something stupid, we know where every single missile launch site of theirs is and we can take it out at the drop of a hat. There is no need to be preemptive with N. Korea at this point in time. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

08-27-2003, 01:08 PM	#20 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Do you think Bush is playing around the preemptiveness on this one and looking to provoke the North? THat makes why more sense. Starve them out and let their resources dwindle forcing them to confrontation. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

08-27-2003, 01:51 PM	#21 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	I certainly think you can make an argument for that, but I don't think so. I really don't think that the North will react in that way, because I think that they know if they do, some serious reprecussions will occur, not just from America, but from generally every nation in the world. I'm not taking this as a view from America, I'm taking this as a point of view of the DPRK, it would not be beneficial for them to launch nukes, and I think they realize that. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."